First Person Dies of Measles in U.S. Since 2003

Haven't seen this mentioned? News is saying she was vaccinated.

a reply to: dreamingawake

do you have a link for that?? oh I found one www.whdh.com...

she had been immuznized as a child....but.....

she had a compromised immune system...they didn't realize she had measles until during the autospy, she didn't break out in spots which is common in people with compromised immune systems...

People with compromised immune systems are at high risk from measles. They often can't be vaccinated. Or, if they are vaccinated, their bodies don't respond in a way that protects them from disease, according to the Washington state health department.

a reply to: Metallicus

This is a personal liberty issue

No, considerations of survival outrank considerations of liberty.

And the welfare of the many trumps the selfishness of the one.

So the woman was vaccinated huh, tell me again why I should have my kids vaccinated? Is this the part where pro vaxxers try to convince me that poison is medicine?

a reply to: jaws1975

tell me again why I should have my kids vaccinated?

Because it greatly reduces the chances of them contracting a disease and thereby the chances of them infecting others.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

Try that argument when you're ticketed for driving without a seatbelt.

Some people are so stupid they need protection from themselves.

Your analogy is false, driving is not a right but a privilege, so seatbelt laws are based off a privilege not a right.

Saying that some people are so stupid that our caring government needs to mandate things like vaccinations is a bigoted opinion, nothing factual whatsoever.

Wrong.
Seatbet laws are to protect drivers, passengers and pedestrians from accidents.
People have a right not to be injured in accidents don't they?
Or is that a priviledge...?

The laws were brought in to make people wear seatbelts as simply informing them of the dangers didn't work as some said it "infringed their personal liberty" amongst other things.
Therefore the people who refused were too stupid to understand the consequences.

Hence it's fact.

originally posted by: jaws1975
So the woman was vaccinated huh, tell me again why I should have my kids vaccinated? Is this the part where pro vaxxers try to convince me that poison is medicine?

Measles vaccine is effective in around 99% of people who've had the full amount of shots.
For various reasons it doesn't "take" for some people.
There are people who for some reason cannot be vaccinated.
Therefore by having as many people vaxxed as possible reduces the risk of exposure to these people significantly.
If you're not vaccinated your chance of getting measles, when exposed to it is >99% as measles is one of, if not the most virulent disease known on Earth.

Do you get it now?

a reply to: Halfswede

If the disease was non-existent because of vaccinations, your point is moot. If the disease was eradicated because of vaccinations, no one would need the vaccine in the first place.

Logic does not appear to be your forté.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

But still.....there is no evidence to support where this woman was exposed to measles and whether it was the trigger for her pneumonia.

Unfortunately, that is not accurate. Both the CDC and NHS list pneumonia as a complication of measles.

Pneumonia often strikes people with immune systems compromised like those sick with the measles or flu. In the last 6 years I've had an aunt and an uncle die from pneumonia they contracted while fighting the flu.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Halfswede

Logic does not appear to be your forté.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

This is just math (logic). I have no issue with vaccines, I am merely stating a fact that is, as I said an "unfortunate" reality/consequence of highly vaccinated societies. READ THAT AGAIN, I said "unfortunate" just as I said in my original post.

As a disease becomes nearly non-existent, there inherently reaches as tipping point where adverse vaccine reactions become more statistically likely than getting the disease and also and adverse reaction from it. It is just math. It doesn't have feelings.

At that point, a parent is statistically putting their kid in less danger by not getting the vaccine. It is just a fact.

Nowhere did I say that people shouldn't vaccinate or that the reason for the diseases decline wasn't vaccines.

You current risk is about 2:1000000 of even getting measles (assuming 700 cases). Then you have a 3-5/1000 chance of having an serious injury.

That puts your risk at about 1 in 100 million of having serious injury from measles RIGHT NOW. Just facts. Again, just an UNFORTUNATE reality when disease become rare. The risk DOES eventually become greater than the reward and you are asking parents by law to put their kid at more risk.

a reply to: Halfswede

Third time lucky, eh?

originally posted by: GetHyped

Ok, this really isn't rocket science.

1) Less people are being vaccinated today than 10 years ago

2) Measles incidences have thus risen accordingly

Therefore, the conclusion that measles incidence rates will continue to rise as more and more ignorant people decide not to vaccinate.

700 isn't a lot now, but compared to the figure of under 50 incidences 10 years ago that's a big increase.



This really isn't a complicated point to grasp so I am baffled that you would even make such an argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

It is pretty evident you aren't and haven't read anything I've posted and just keep regurgitating something not related. Thanks for playing.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

But still.....there is no evidence to support where this woman was exposed to measles and whether it was the trigger for her pneumonia.

Unfortunately, that is not accurate. Both the CDC and NHS list pneumonia as a complication of measles.

Pneumonia often strikes people with immune systems compromised like those sick with the measles or flu. In the last 6 years I've had an aunt and an uncle die from pneumonia they contracted while fighting the flu.

One other thing which is quite important is that immunocompromised very rarely have a rash so it can be difficult without testing properly, to diagnose it.
The rash is a product of the body's natural defences against measles so if you're defences aren't up to scratch you ain't going to get one.
Double whammy.

a reply to: Phage

Because it greatly reduces the chances of them contracting a disease and thereby the chances of them infecting others.

Ok, but there has been 1 death in over a decade(who was vaccinated), shouldn't there be loads of unvaccinated deaths from measles.

I'm starting to think that this is just a warmup for the upcoming ebola breakout, which will be conveniently when they roll out the mandatory ebola vaccination. Talk about some real scare tactics.

a reply to: Pardon?

People have a right not to be injured in accidents don't they?

What the hell are you talking about? I can't argue with this logic.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Phage

Because it greatly reduces the chances of them contracting a disease and thereby the chances of them infecting others.

Ok, but there has been 1 death in over a decade(who was vaccinated), shouldn't there be loads of unvaccinated deaths from measles.

I'm starting to think that this is just a warmup for the upcoming ebola breakout, which will be conveniently when they roll out the mandatory ebola vaccination. Talk about some real scare tactics.

You're just not getting it are you?

The incidence of measles has increased as a result of a drop in vaccinations.
Generally, measles is a relatively benign but very uncomfortable disease which causes no lasting harm.
However, if you're not in good health etc measles can be very harmful and in this case deadly.
The vast majority of measles cases have been in unvaccinated kids and adults, there have been very few in vaccinated individuals.
Measles cannot propagate in a fully vaxed person therefore they can't be carriers.
If you're not immune the virus will propagate and spread via the air very quickly.

By arresting this ability for it to spread by vaccinating others who may not be immune are therefore protected.

If the amount of people who are not immune increases, the amount of measles cases will increase and there will inevitably be severe illness and death in susceptible people.
The vast majority of whom will be unvaccinated.


Edit: The fact that you're trying to link this to a possible ebola scare makes me think you're not really thinking rationally about this.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

People have a right not to be injured in accidents don't they?

What the hell are you talking about? I can't argue with this logic.

You've made that plainly obvious with most of your posts so far.
It's difficult to argue with something if you don't understand it in the first place.

a reply to: Pardon?

I understand perfectly fine, but I'm not buying what you are selling. The more research that people do, the more people don't vaccinate. It must have something to do with the actual ingredients in the vaccines, but I'm sure you will tell me a little poison is ok right?

Clean up the vaccinations, take out the poisons, have multiple neutral parties do the safety studies and then I will look at taking vaccines seriously. Until then all I see is a multi billion dollar business, and a bunch of fear mongers running from their own shadows.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: notmyrealname

And how might i ask did they eradicate it . Insert answer here ____________

So you're perfectly content with allowing a few thousand people in this country DIE every year until _____ disease is eradicated?

1 person dies and you lose your mind, even though you don't have any evidence it wasn't related to a pre-existing condition?

Tell me again, please, how ____ disease is worse than a vaccine which kills or debilitates THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR?

You essentially are asking us to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of eradicating a disease which has killed 1 person in the last 12 years.

You don't really get it, do you. Hopefully it won't be YOUR loved one next that dies from a bad vaccine reaction. The odds are far far far more likely to happen than _____ disease. Care to disagree? You will be easily proven wrong.

a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss


You quote my question in your reply but do not answer it .

How ironic that you live in a part of the world free from so many deadly diseases but are against the very thing that make this possible .